Talk:Fun - Revision history

Phol ende wodan: /* Fabulous idea, good content. Personally I'm not sure of the style. */ advocating for not trying to change use of second-person

2020-07-30T12:04:39Z

‎Fabulous idea, good content. Personally I'm not sure of the style.: advocating for not trying to change use of second-person

Testbutt: /* Fabulous idea, good content. Personally I'm not sure of the style. */

2020-07-30T05:00:33Z

‎Fabulous idea, good content. Personally I'm not sure of the style.

Testbutt: comment comment

2020-07-30T04:59:24Z

comment comment

S.K.: /* @Ilmari Karonen */ new section

2011-12-02T22:44:14Z

‎@Ilmari Karonen: new section

Tjr: Text replace - "Wikihack" to "NetHackWiki"

2010-11-11T18:42:07Z

Text replace - "Wikihack" to "NetHackWiki"

Ekaterin at 09:44, 22 May 2009

2009-05-22T09:44:47Z

Rogerb-on-NAO: No huge outcry, so added todo.

2008-07-20T20:40:55Z

No huge outcry, so added todo.

Rogerb-on-NAO: Fabulous idea, good content. Personally I'm not sure of the style.

2008-07-10T20:04:45Z

Fabulous idea, good content. Personally I'm not sure of the style.

New page

== Fabulous idea, good content. Personally I'm not sure of the style. ==

I was going to add the below as a ''todo'', but given Ray's comment (''nice article''), I suppose this might just be my opinion so I'm putting it here for discussion. I do certainly agree having an article called ''Fun'' is an excellent idea, and the content is good. My issue is whether the style is appropriate:

;Proposed ''todo'':
:Style - wikihack is not an encyclopaedia. Nevertheless, according to the [[Wikihack:Style guide|Style guide]], ''articles in the main namespace should be written in a largely encyclopaedic tone''. While this should undoubtedly be applied with latitude on a page entitled ''Fun'', an overly chatty style and particularly use of the first person should be avoided. This article should be rewritten to follow the style guide.

--[[User:Rogerb-on-NAO|Rogerb-on-NAO]] 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 30 July 2020
Line 11:		Line 11:

	::i didn't actually spot any first-person in that article, but there's a '''lot''' of second-person. that can be fixed, if using "one" instead of "you" isn't too unpleasant. --[[User:Testbutt\|Testbutt]] ([[User talk:Testbutt\|talk]]) 04:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC) edit: also, the article leans heavily on the word "arguably".		::i didn't actually spot any first-person in that article, but there's a '''lot''' of second-person. that can be fixed, if using "one" instead of "you" isn't too unpleasant. --[[User:Testbutt\|Testbutt]] ([[User talk:Testbutt\|talk]]) 04:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC) edit: also, the article leans heavily on the word "arguably".
		+
		+	::: "You" is used heavily all over NetHackWiki, and this seems to be generally accepted because the conversational tone of addressing the reader is preferable to having more awkward constructions and endless disagreements over "the player" versus "the character". I wouldn't change that aspect of it. Overuse of "arguably", though, can be amended. --[[User:Phol ende wodan\|Phol ende wodan]] ([[User talk:Phol ende wodan\|talk]]) 12:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

	I've added some headings to highlight a couple of themes that seemed to be running through this page - how playing for fun and playing to win can sometimes seem to conflict, and the added fun of playing NetHack socially. I also changed the example of scumming from foocubi to pudding farming. Excessive foocubi scumming boosts your level and stats but not your equipment, so could leave you less able to survive (a bit like the strategy of hanging out on dlevel 1 until you are clevel 3, which not everyone thinks is good).		I've added some headings to highlight a couple of themes that seemed to be running through this page - how playing for fun and playing to win can sometimes seem to conflict, and the added fun of playing NetHack socially. I also changed the example of scumming from foocubi to pudding farming. Excessive foocubi scumming boosts your level and stats but not your equipment, so could leave you less able to survive (a bit like the strategy of hanging out on dlevel 1 until you are clevel 3, which not everyone thinks is good).

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 :No huge outcry, so added todo. --[[User:Rogerb-on-NAO|Rogerb-on-NAO]] 20:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
-::i didn't actually spot any first-person in that article, but there's a '''lot''' of second-person.  that can be fixed, if using "one" instead of "you" isn't too unpleasant. --[[User:Testbutt|Testbutt]] ([[User talk:Testbutt|talk]]) 04:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
+::i didn't actually spot any first-person in that article, but there's a '''lot''' of second-person.  that can be fixed, if using "one" instead of "you" isn't too unpleasant. --[[User:Testbutt|Testbutt]] ([[User talk:Testbutt|talk]]) 04:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)  edit: also, the article leans heavily on the word "arguably".
 I've added some headings to highlight a couple of themes that seemed to be running through this page - how playing for fun and playing to win can sometimes seem to conflict, and the added fun of playing NetHack socially.  I also changed the example of scumming from foocubi to pudding farming.  Excessive foocubi scumming boosts your level and stats but not your equipment, so could leave you less able to survive (a bit like the strategy of hanging out on dlevel 1 until you are clevel 3, which not everyone thinks is good).

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:59, 30 July 2020
Line 9:		Line 9:

	:No huge outcry, so added todo. --[[User:Rogerb-on-NAO\|Rogerb-on-NAO]] 20:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)		:No huge outcry, so added todo. --[[User:Rogerb-on-NAO\|Rogerb-on-NAO]] 20:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	::i didn't actually spot any first-person in that article, but there's a '''lot''' of second-person. that can be fixed, if using "one" instead of "you" isn't too unpleasant. --[[User:Testbutt\|Testbutt]] ([[User talk:Testbutt\|talk]]) 04:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

	I've added some headings to highlight a couple of themes that seemed to be running through this page - how playing for fun and playing to win can sometimes seem to conflict, and the added fun of playing NetHack socially. I also changed the example of scumming from foocubi to pudding farming. Excessive foocubi scumming boosts your level and stats but not your equipment, so could leave you less able to survive (a bit like the strategy of hanging out on dlevel 1 until you are clevel 3, which not everyone thinks is good).		I've added some headings to highlight a couple of themes that seemed to be running through this page - how playing for fun and playing to win can sometimes seem to conflict, and the added fun of playing NetHack socially. I also changed the example of scumming from foocubi to pudding farming. Excessive foocubi scumming boosts your level and stats but not your equipment, so could leave you less able to survive (a bit like the strategy of hanging out on dlevel 1 until you are clevel 3, which not everyone thinks is good).

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 2 December 2011
Line 12:		Line 12:
	I've added some headings to highlight a couple of themes that seemed to be running through this page - how playing for fun and playing to win can sometimes seem to conflict, and the added fun of playing NetHack socially. I also changed the example of scumming from foocubi to pudding farming. Excessive foocubi scumming boosts your level and stats but not your equipment, so could leave you less able to survive (a bit like the strategy of hanging out on dlevel 1 until you are clevel 3, which not everyone thinks is good).		I've added some headings to highlight a couple of themes that seemed to be running through this page - how playing for fun and playing to win can sometimes seem to conflict, and the added fun of playing NetHack socially. I also changed the example of scumming from foocubi to pudding farming. Excessive foocubi scumming boosts your level and stats but not your equipment, so could leave you less able to survive (a bit like the strategy of hanging out on dlevel 1 until you are clevel 3, which not everyone thinks is good).
	[[User:Ekaterin\|Ekaterin]] 09:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)		[[User:Ekaterin\|Ekaterin]] 09:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	== @Ilmari Karonen ==
		+
		+	Ilmari Karonen, thank You. Thanks to Your link, i discovered Dwarf Fortress - good game full of fun. And new wiki to read while I have nothing to do.
		+	--[[User:S.K.\|S.K.]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:44, 22 May 2009
Line 9:		Line 9:

	:No huge outcry, so added todo. --[[User:Rogerb-on-NAO\|Rogerb-on-NAO]] 20:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)		:No huge outcry, so added todo. --[[User:Rogerb-on-NAO\|Rogerb-on-NAO]] 20:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	I've added some headings to highlight a couple of themes that seemed to be running through this page - how playing for fun and playing to win can sometimes seem to conflict, and the added fun of playing NetHack socially. I also changed the example of scumming from foocubi to pudding farming. Excessive foocubi scumming boosts your level and stats but not your equipment, so could leave you less able to survive (a bit like the strategy of hanging out on dlevel 1 until you are clevel 3, which not everyone thinks is good).
		+	[[User:Ekaterin\|Ekaterin]] 09:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 ;Proposed ''todo'':
-:Style - wikihack is not an encyclopaedia. Nevertheless, according to the [[Wikihack:Style guide|Style guide]], ''articles in the main namespace should be written in a largely encyclopaedic tone''. While this should undoubtedly be applied with latitude on a page entitled ''Fun'', an overly chatty style and particularly use of the first person should be avoided. This article should be rewritten to follow the style guide.
+:Style - wikihack is not an encyclopaedia. Nevertheless, according to the [[NetHackWiki:Style guide|Style guide]], ''articles in the main namespace should be written in a largely encyclopaedic tone''. While this should undoubtedly be applied with latitude on a page entitled ''Fun'', an overly chatty style and particularly use of the first person should be avoided. This article should be rewritten to follow the style guide.
 --[[User:Rogerb-on-NAO|Rogerb-on-NAO]] 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:40, 20 July 2008
Line 7:		Line 7:

	--[[User:Rogerb-on-NAO\|Rogerb-on-NAO]] 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)		--[[User:Rogerb-on-NAO\|Rogerb-on-NAO]] 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	:No huge outcry, so added todo. --[[User:Rogerb-on-NAO\|Rogerb-on-NAO]] 20:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)